Friday's HOT MIC

Welcome to HOT MIC, PJ Media's daily liveblog. Join our editors and contributors for news updates and conversation throughout the day, and add your thoughts to the mix in our comments section at the bottom or by clicking on the comment bubbles on individual posts. Be sure to save this link so you can find HOT MIC every day.

The pathetic statement put out by the Evergreen College staff today looks like neither a plea for help, nor Stockholm Syndrome to me. It looks like weak, aging radicals agreeing with their younger, stupider fellow travelers. The statement has to be seen to be believed, but don't read it on a full stomach.

In an article published Friday, The New York Times outed the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) top spy overseeing the organization’s efforts in Iran. The paper justified its outing of the undercover CIA spy and his role within the agency by saying it was necessary since the agent is “leading an important new administration initiative against Iran.”

Yes. That really happened.

***

The Israel Project’s Omri Ceren pointed out on Twitter, the fact that the CIA officials who spoke to the Times did so under the condition of anonymity because D’Andrea is still undercover means that the newspaper article is indeed outing him. And his safety is now likely in jeopardy thanks to the Times.

My working theory: Scarborough, who called for Trump to fire Bannon in March, is trying to bait the president into doing just that. He thinks Trump is thin-skinned and will bristle if talk of "President Bannon" becomes part of the 24/7 news cycle. So far that strategy hasn't panned out. Remember the giddy predictions about Sean Spicer getting the boot because he was hogging the spotlight? But, of course, with the "Spicey" SNL situation you didn't have a member of the president's family in the mix. I hope Scarborough is wrong. It would send a terrible message to our enemies if Trump were to demonstrate that he could be so easily manipulated.

If you ever wanted to understand the power of tribal loyalty, there are two new articles for you to read. The first is a Daily Beast article that explores the reinvention of Maxine Waters, a congresswoman "once dubbed one of the nation's 'most corrupt'" in Washington, D.C. The second is a column titled "Why Conservatives Still Attack Trump" in which columnist and radio talk-show host Dennis Prager attempts to figure out why so many Republicans refuse to walk lockstep with President Trump.

Let's start with Waters, who is, of course, still corrupt—a dictator-loving conspiracy theorist who has abused her office for decades. She is now the recipient of standing ovations for her sharp attacks on Trump. The esteem Waters receives not only exposes the hypocrisy of many who claim to resist Trump on constitutional and ethical grounds but also warns against aligning yourself with people who don't respect the norms they claim to protect.

Those who advocate overturning the Citizens United ruling and allowing the state to ban political speech—almost every liberal—have little business lecturing about free expression. Neither do those who, only a few months ago, proposed ditching Fifth Amendment protections in an effort to confiscate guns. Nor do those whose opposition to spying on American citizens is contingent on which president is in office. The notion that Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) or Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) are guardians of the Constitution is laughable.

Obligatory post-election anti-Trumpism, which dictates absolute opposition to what this one person is doing, puts you in league with people whose concern has little to do with the Constitution and everything to do with their ideology. "Never Trump" was once a statement of intent. Now it's often a demand for conservatives to engage in hysterics every time the word "Russia" appears. No, thanks.

Kathy Griffin gave a press conference today in which she did not retract her apology over the Trump severed head photo, but did attack Trump. From Nancy Dillon at The New York Daily News:

"A sitting president of the United States and his grown children and the First Lady are personally, I feel, personally trying to ruin my life forever. Forever," she said. "You guys know him. He's never going to stop." ...

The comedian said she won't let their public comments stop her from telling the jokes she wants to, though she suggested they won't be as ghastly as the controversial decapitated Trump photo.

“This bully, this president, of all people is gonna come after me?” Griffin said. “He picked the wrong redhead.”

“I’m gonna make fun of a president. And you know what, I’m gonna make fun of him more now, more. I’m not going to threaten him. I have no desire to harm him or anyone. I would never want to harm anybody.”

What did she think was going to happen? Was Griffin surprised when Trump tweeted about her? If she wanted him to stop "personally trying to ruin" her life, why release this statement?

After the backlash, when CNN fired her, this woman might have had a change of heart. It seems she decided she would become an anti-Trump celebrity, because that's the only thing she still has going for her. Make no mistake, she is now egging Trump on. She's trying to turn herself into the victim. Let's see if Trump takes the bait. He should just let sleeping dogs lie and move on, but he's Donald Trump...

PJM's Megan Fox (gentle and subdued as always) had a few things to say about Kathy Griffin and Jeopardy star Ken Jennings, both of whom are targeting Barron Trump:

"Like" PJ Media's Lifestyle page on Facebook for more great content like this. Click here.

Later this afternoon Megan will have a response to Kathy Griffin's press conference in our Lifestyle section. I expect it to be gentle and subdued (ahem).

UPDATE: Here's the link. Megan writes that there are victims of this photo shoot, none of whom are Kathy Griffin:

The other victims are all of you. You Deplorables out there who support your president. Griffin wasn't just holding up Trump's head, she was holding up yours and mine. She exposed the truth of who the Left are and what they want in one photo. If you think they don't want this to end in bloody violence with them standing victorious and smeared in our blood, you're fooling yourself. Just visit Berkeley when some conservative is slated to speak and wear a #MAGA hat. If you make it out unbloodied it will be a miracle.

If left in place, the climate deal would cost American taxpayers billions of dollars in payouts to Third World dictators. It would also drive up the cost of manufacturing, making it harder for U.S. companies to compete with companies in China, which has a much lower burden to bear in the climate agreement.

Climate change alarmists, however, are losing their minds over the unenforceable agreement. Here’s 15 of their most ridiculous reactions.

We've already mentioned a couple of them here, but do go read the whole thing.

A few years back, Ohio legalized casino gambling for the first time via a referendum to amend the state's Constitution. Casino industry lawyers actually wrote the text of the amendment (which is ridiculously long and looks more like a real estate deal than an amendment) and agreed to pay a commercial activity tax. However, the lawyers weren't all that precise with the language and it wasn't clear whether the tax would be on profits or gross receipts before payouts. As you can imagine, the difference between those two numbers is significant. Gov. Kasich, facing an $8 billion budget shortfall, said the CAT applied to gross receipts before payouts. The casino owners screamed and howled and threatened to walk away from the whole deal (even as the casinos were under construction). A panicked Kasich used his pen and an obscure administrative board to pretty much re-write the constitutional amendment to exempt a portion of the casinos' receipts from the CAT (other businesses still have to pay the tax on their gross receipts).

I share this story because the same kind of thing may come into play in California if they try to impose a tax on gross receipts to pay for single-payer healthcare. There are certain (very influential) industries that might have a thing or two to say about that. They'd either try to put a stop to it altogether or, more likely, demand an exemption, claiming "hardship."